G.R. No. L-47791; April 30, 1941
JOSE S. DE OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. AMBROSIO SANTOS, Judge of First Instance of Tarlac, respondent.

FACTS

In the intestate proceedings of the deceased Nicolas de Ocampo (Special Proceeding No. 4879, Court of First Instance of Tarlac), petitioner Jose S. de Ocampo applied to be appointed administrator, alleging he was a close relative as a son of the deceased, who left an estate worth P29,000 without a will. His petition was opposed by Paula Apostol, who claimed the right to be administratrix as the deceased’s widow, alleging the petitioner was an illegitimate son, a gambler, and lacked integrity. Another claimant, Justa Samaniego, also appeared, asserting she was the legitimate widow. During hearings on August 22, 1940, to determine the rightful administrator, the lawyer for Paula Apostol proposed the appointment of Carlos Rodriguez, a civil engineer from Tarlac, as special administrator pending resolution of the conflicting claims. The petitioner did not oppose the appointment of a special administrator but objected to Rodriguez’s selection, insisting he should be appointed. The court, by order dated August 27, 1940, appointed Carlos Rodriguez as special administrator, requiring a P3,000 bond. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on September 12, 1940. Instead of appealing, the petitioner instituted this certiorari proceeding.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in appointing Carlos Rodriguez as special administrator instead of the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion or commit any error in appointing Carlos Rodriguez. The power to appoint an administrator, whether regular or special, rests entirely within the sound discretion of the court (Article 6, Rule 80; Article 1, Rule 81, Rules of Court; citing Capistrano v. Nadurata and Esler v. Tad-Y). The statutory order of preference for appointment may be disregarded by the court when circumstances so advise or when the preferred person is unsuitable or partial. In this case, the court was justified in selecting Rodriguez because it was alleged that the petitioner was an illegitimate son, and there were competing claims from two alleged widows (Paula Apostol and Justa Samaniego). Until the court could determine, based on evidence still being presented, who was the true widow and the nearest relative of the deceased, it could not resolve who had the better right to administration. The court’s appointment of a special administrator was authorized under Article 1, Rule 81 of the Rules of Court, which allows such appointment when, for any reason, the court cannot appoint a regular administrator in the order established by Article 6, Rule 80. Costs were taxed against the petitioner.